Consent rather than a vote
Possibly the word “VOTING” is a misleading term for the SRA initiative of “Saving St Francis” Maybe it would be better referred to as a CONSENT form for in reality they are asking the St Francis Property Owners, business and residential, for their consent to raise funds through a rates levy on their properties. This initiative is after all not like a national or municipal election which has to abide by the laws as monitored by the IEC but rather it is asking property owners if they are prepared to pay the levy or not.
In a nutshell it needs 50% plus one of those who own property in St Francis to say YAY or NAY. That is the long and short of it. Certainly the results need to be audited and SFPO have already made this quite clear in all their correspondence to date that it will be fully transparent.
That there seems to be a lot of possible misunderstanding is quite obvious from the e-mails and comments posted on \St Francis Today and to this end it is only proper that we seek answers to the many queries so as to ensure readers are properly answered and kept up to date with the facts. So rather than publish further articles and have the same queries lodged time and again we will be meeting with St Francis Property Owners to go over some of the pertinent questions asked by readers.
Bear with us and hopefully all your queries and possible misunderstanding will be answered in the next day or two.
I feel a 51% vote to be insufficient as it could prejudice just under half the other property owners. Some of which could be unaware of the proposal such as those overseas, those who do not have internet access etc.
I feel a clause should be added to the effect that those voting against & those who did not vote can opt out of the system.
This would be fair to many who would not be in a position to absorb the increase.
Furthermore I feel that something as important as this proposal should need a two thirds majority & not a simple one.
I see that on the form for voting/consent, Cape St Francis is included with St Francis Bay. In the event that there is a positive result – positive 50% plus one, will the Cape St Francis funds be ring-fenced. This is not clear.